It's good for you!
Oh, I know what you're thinking: "Sure, everything that was bad for you is good for you suddenly. Chocolate, caffeine, wine--isn't it just a rash of wishful thinking and media hype?"
Actually, it isn't. Though once looked down upon as mere fluff on the fringes of an acceptable diet, these fabulous foods have been gaining new respect in the scientific community for more than a decade. And for good reason. The health-benefits of wine have now been widely researched, and research on coffee, tea and chocolate is accumulating as well. The good news can be traced to a wide range of polyphenols: a group of healthy, plant-based substances that include resveratrol and all types of flavonoids--some of which are condensed tannins. These are all powerful antioxidants capable of conferring enormous health benefits when ingested by humans.
In 2001, US Patent #6063770 was issued to the inventor of a cancer treatment that used tannic acid and tannin complexes as "a method of stripping N-acetyl neuraminic acid from a cancer cell surface allowing recognition of said cancer cell by the immune system."
A 2005 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found there was no linear association between caffeine and hypertension, despite the fact that past studies had apparently found one. What was different about their study? They broke out the caffeine drinks by type. Their conclusion? It wasn't caffeine that was the problem. It's the kinds of drinks you choose. In the words of the researchers, "even though habitual coffee consumption was not associated with an increased risk of hypertension, consumption of sugared or diet cola was associated with it. Further research to elucidate the role of cola beverages in hypertension is warranted."
A 2007 study by the American Academy of Neurology found that caffeine exhibited a protective effect against cognitive decline in older women.
Give caffeine to your ADHD child to make him or her less hyperactive? Surely not. But according to the Journal of Attention Disorders: "Studies examining caffeine's effects on cognitive, psychomotor, and affective functioning of children with ADHD were reviewed. For children with ADHD, caffeine was more effective than no treatment in decreasing impulsivity, aggression, and parents' and teachers' perceptions of children's symptom severity, and more effective than placebo in decreasing hyperactivity and teachers' perceptions of children's symptom severity, and in improving executive functioning/planning."
As for the red wine headaches that plague some would-be drinkers: contrary to popular belief they are not caused by sulfites. There are more sulfites in white wine than in red, and sulfites are naturally occurring substances in many other foods. In fact, if sulfites are going to cause a problem at all, it will usually be a breathing problem rather than a headache.
Many people who get red wine headaches have noticed that some types of wine give them problems while others do not. Those with the patience and stomach to experiment have sometimes found an association to the type of oak barrels the wine may have been aged in.
Regardless of the cause, considering that caffeine is an active ingredient in some headache medicines, go ahead and enjoy that glass of red wine with dinner. Just be sure to have a good, strong cup of Italian coffee afterward!
26 August 2007
29 July 2007
New Canadian TV Show Looks for August Weddings
by Gina Stepp
August is the second biggest month of the year for weddings, so it's no surprise that Wedding SOS, a new series planned for SLICE network, has recently placed an advertisement calling for couples whose nuptials will be held that month in 2007. The idea, apparently, is that host Jane Dayus-Hinch will act as "fairy godmother" to fix any wedding snafus that may occur on the special day. As is the usual practice with fairy godmothers, you only get three wishes and presumably one of them is not allowed to be "I wish to have a hundred more wishes," or anything along those lines.
Three wishes may be sufficient to ensure the success of most weddings, actually. Especially if their snafus are of a practical nature, such as an unplugged freezer that has resulted in the loss of a spectacular ice-sculpture, or an absent-minded best man who has accidentally swallowed the bride's wedding ring. But I'm curious to see how they plan to fix the really difficult problems: like a distant father-daughter relationship that has left the bride without anyone to walk her down the aisle.
In case Wedding SOS doesn't have that part covered, it might be helpful for August brides to read Like Father, Like . . . Daughter, which explores some of the concepts taught by Dr. Linda Nielsen of Wake Forest University in her Fathers and Daughters class.
According to Nielsen, who has taught her course for about 20 years, there is a great deal a daughter can do on her own to change the relationship she has with her father--and, in fact, for her own peace of mind, she says, a daughter should make the initial steps, whether or not her father even seems interested.
If her efforts don't yield results, a bride is no worse off than before and at least has the satisfaction of knowing she tried once more. With a free conscience, she can then use one of her wishes and hope fairy godmother Jane Dayus-Hinch conjures up an appropriate substitute!
August is the second biggest month of the year for weddings, so it's no surprise that Wedding SOS, a new series planned for SLICE network, has recently placed an advertisement calling for couples whose nuptials will be held that month in 2007. The idea, apparently, is that host Jane Dayus-Hinch will act as "fairy godmother" to fix any wedding snafus that may occur on the special day. As is the usual practice with fairy godmothers, you only get three wishes and presumably one of them is not allowed to be "I wish to have a hundred more wishes," or anything along those lines.
Three wishes may be sufficient to ensure the success of most weddings, actually. Especially if their snafus are of a practical nature, such as an unplugged freezer that has resulted in the loss of a spectacular ice-sculpture, or an absent-minded best man who has accidentally swallowed the bride's wedding ring. But I'm curious to see how they plan to fix the really difficult problems: like a distant father-daughter relationship that has left the bride without anyone to walk her down the aisle.
In case Wedding SOS doesn't have that part covered, it might be helpful for August brides to read Like Father, Like . . . Daughter, which explores some of the concepts taught by Dr. Linda Nielsen of Wake Forest University in her Fathers and Daughters class.
According to Nielsen, who has taught her course for about 20 years, there is a great deal a daughter can do on her own to change the relationship she has with her father--and, in fact, for her own peace of mind, she says, a daughter should make the initial steps, whether or not her father even seems interested.
If her efforts don't yield results, a bride is no worse off than before and at least has the satisfaction of knowing she tried once more. With a free conscience, she can then use one of her wishes and hope fairy godmother Jane Dayus-Hinch conjures up an appropriate substitute!
14 June 2007
Keynote
by Haley Stepp
Guest blogger Haley Stepp is a 14-year-old sophomore at California State University who recently covered Silverdocs (the noted documentary film festival) for Lady DaVinci.com
Ted Leonsis spoke about filmanthropy today in his Keynote session. It was an intriguing view on the goal of filmmaking; many filmmakers seem either to want to make money, or to want to change the world—but Leonsis’s view stood out because it allowed for the simultaneous application of both approaches.
Of course, Leonsis explained, profit is important. If you take to a producer an idea that will bring your company into debt, you’ll (naturally) be fired. However, he continued, it is very hard to make a profit from documentaries. Instead of focusing entirely on business, filmmakers should ask themselves whether their films make a difference. In other words, they should try to change the world while not forgetting about profit. Leonsis believes filmmakers can awaken thoughts and ideas in other people while creating a sense of fulfillment in themselves.
Referred to as a "pioneer of the new media industry," Leonsis is known for his philanthropy, so it is no surprise to hear him stress that filmmaking should give people happiness. If a career or line of work doesn’t give people happiness, he proposed in his address—be it the worker or those enjoying their products—then there’s no reason to continue with that career. And Leonsis realizes that happiness does not come from wealth.
Leonsis’s thoughtful approach to profit is worth pondering. Though he insisted that profit is not everything, he sees the advantage of profit through the internet: as the internet grows more and more prevalent, it becomes more possible to reach a larger audience with film. And it is true—the the world is becoming an increasingly online one; as a college student, I spend much of my time on the computer doing research for papers, looking for media, and creating media of my own. My attention could well be caught and held by an interesting “online documentary.” Filmmakers should not neglect the internet as they pursue theatres. The possibility exists to reach a much larger audience, and gain a greater opportunity to change the world. And—not forgetting about profit—to make more money than ever before.
Guest blogger Haley Stepp is a 14-year-old sophomore at California State University who recently covered Silverdocs (the noted documentary film festival) for Lady DaVinci.com
Ted Leonsis spoke about filmanthropy today in his Keynote session. It was an intriguing view on the goal of filmmaking; many filmmakers seem either to want to make money, or to want to change the world—but Leonsis’s view stood out because it allowed for the simultaneous application of both approaches.
Of course, Leonsis explained, profit is important. If you take to a producer an idea that will bring your company into debt, you’ll (naturally) be fired. However, he continued, it is very hard to make a profit from documentaries. Instead of focusing entirely on business, filmmakers should ask themselves whether their films make a difference. In other words, they should try to change the world while not forgetting about profit. Leonsis believes filmmakers can awaken thoughts and ideas in other people while creating a sense of fulfillment in themselves.
Referred to as a "pioneer of the new media industry," Leonsis is known for his philanthropy, so it is no surprise to hear him stress that filmmaking should give people happiness. If a career or line of work doesn’t give people happiness, he proposed in his address—be it the worker or those enjoying their products—then there’s no reason to continue with that career. And Leonsis realizes that happiness does not come from wealth.
Leonsis’s thoughtful approach to profit is worth pondering. Though he insisted that profit is not everything, he sees the advantage of profit through the internet: as the internet grows more and more prevalent, it becomes more possible to reach a larger audience with film. And it is true—the the world is becoming an increasingly online one; as a college student, I spend much of my time on the computer doing research for papers, looking for media, and creating media of my own. My attention could well be caught and held by an interesting “online documentary.” Filmmakers should not neglect the internet as they pursue theatres. The possibility exists to reach a much larger audience, and gain a greater opportunity to change the world. And—not forgetting about profit—to make more money than ever before.
13 June 2007
Notes From the Future
Guest blogger Haley Stepp is a 14-year-old sophomore at California State University who recently covered Silverdocs (the noted documentary film festival) for Lady DaVinci.
The “Notes From the Future” panel on June 13 provided some interesting insights into the future of filmmaking, as well as several filmmakers’ responses to this possible future. I find this quite an intriguing topic, as we live in a rapidly changing world, altered by growing knowledge and technology. Since this world is strongly affected by media, changes in the media will affect the world.
The conclusion of the panel left that the internet will continue to change film, but that the model of filmmaking will stay the same. According to G.J. Echternkamp, the producer of Frank and Cindy, people will always prefer watching movies on a television or theatre screen, and will always appreciate well-made, high-budget films. The internet, he thinks, will not become much more than a promotional place for video. The other panelists shared similar opinions.
I partially agree with his view. Though I have watched films on the internet, it is more exciting to watch them on a television or theatre screen; most of the people I know feel the same. I have high confidence, therefore, that well-made theatre films will remain an integral part of the film experience. However, I do believe that an increasing number of people will extend that experience to the internet, as well. Already there are web sites on which one can watch full-length movies when programmed media conflicts with one’s schedule. There are online rental sites, as well, that allow downloading. This online film experience will most likely continue to expand, but people will also continue to pay for the majority of their films.
From a college student's point of view, today's panel discussion covered some interesting material, although it was presented in a somewhat disorganized fashion. The panelists spent a lot of time expressing their dissatisfaction with internet media and their hopes that the internet will not impact the film industry negatively; this brought attention away from possible developments for the future, which was the purported topic. Instead the focus got stuck on those things the panelists don’t like about the current effects of internet on film, and strayed to the future only when discussing the negative: things they hope the future will not bring. However, there were several good insights on the part of the panelists, which illuminated some interesting possibilities for the future of film.
The “Notes From the Future” panel on June 13 provided some interesting insights into the future of filmmaking, as well as several filmmakers’ responses to this possible future. I find this quite an intriguing topic, as we live in a rapidly changing world, altered by growing knowledge and technology. Since this world is strongly affected by media, changes in the media will affect the world.
The conclusion of the panel left that the internet will continue to change film, but that the model of filmmaking will stay the same. According to G.J. Echternkamp, the producer of Frank and Cindy, people will always prefer watching movies on a television or theatre screen, and will always appreciate well-made, high-budget films. The internet, he thinks, will not become much more than a promotional place for video. The other panelists shared similar opinions.
I partially agree with his view. Though I have watched films on the internet, it is more exciting to watch them on a television or theatre screen; most of the people I know feel the same. I have high confidence, therefore, that well-made theatre films will remain an integral part of the film experience. However, I do believe that an increasing number of people will extend that experience to the internet, as well. Already there are web sites on which one can watch full-length movies when programmed media conflicts with one’s schedule. There are online rental sites, as well, that allow downloading. This online film experience will most likely continue to expand, but people will also continue to pay for the majority of their films.
From a college student's point of view, today's panel discussion covered some interesting material, although it was presented in a somewhat disorganized fashion. The panelists spent a lot of time expressing their dissatisfaction with internet media and their hopes that the internet will not impact the film industry negatively; this brought attention away from possible developments for the future, which was the purported topic. Instead the focus got stuck on those things the panelists don’t like about the current effects of internet on film, and strayed to the future only when discussing the negative: things they hope the future will not bring. However, there were several good insights on the part of the panelists, which illuminated some interesting possibilities for the future of film.
10 January 2007
Time to be Plutoed
by Gina Stepp
On January 2, 1928, Time Magazine featured its first “Man of the Year," aviator Charles Lindbergh. It was a brilliant solution to the year-end dilemma presented by a traditionally slow news week. As a result, what is now called (in modern parlance) the “Person” of the Year, has been an eagerly anticipated feature of Time Magazine ever since. This was, in fact, the reason I stayed glued to CNN on the evening of December 16. It was a Saturday night….a night when anything can happen and no one ordinarily wants to stay home. So why did I? I wanted to find out whether for 2006, by some wild fluke, the person of the year just might be me.
And it was! Imagine my surprise. I should mention there was just the tiniest unexpected letdown though. Once you’ve made the cover of Time as Person of the Year (as I now have), there’s not really all that much more to anticipate in that quarter. I mean—obviously it’s not going to be me again next year, so where’s the incentive to hang on to the edge of my seat anymore?
I don’t think I’m the only one who feels this way either. In fact, my message to Time is, “move over, my friend, there’s a more interesting year-end prospect in town. Quite frankly, you have been plutoed!” (At this point, the blank expression on Time’s face clues me in to the fact that perhaps it’s having trouble understanding my dialect.) “Plutoed,” I repeat. “Surely you know what it means to be plutoed? And if not--well, then! That’s precisely the reason you have been plutoed.”
But plutoed by whom? Plutoed by what? Well, every January from now on, instead of tuning to CNN to watch the unveiling of Time’s Person of the Year; we will all be glued (via the Infobahn) to http colon, double backslash, www dot, americandialect dot org, in order to discover the current recipient of the honour of…. “The Word of the Year.”
Just in case you’re wondering, the 2006 “Word of the Year” title (by the power of the American Dialect Society), has been awarded to the new expression “to pluto, or to be plutoed.” According to the ADS, ‘to pluto,’ is “to demote or devalue someone or something, as happened to the former planet Pluto when the General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union decided Pluto no longer met its definition of a planet.” (See: Dogged! Pluto Stripped of Planetary Status, August 2006).
The ADS (it should be noted) is no fly-by-night organization. “Founded in 1889,” says their website, “the American Dialect Society is dedicated to the study of the English language in North America, and of other languages, or dialects of other languages, influencing it or influenced by it. Our members include academics and amateurs, professionals and dilettantes, teachers and writers.” (More than likely, the dilettantes bit is just to make the Society seem more personable, since the other members listed evoke images of 9th grade English teachers).
At this point it’s important to acknowledge that most of the time, the ADS concentrates on serious language issues. However, like Time Magazine, each December the Society likes to reminisce about those of the past year’s events that could be considered significant in relation to their particular line of work. Also like Time Magazine, the ADS has an effective process for collecting nominations, discussing the merits of each, and counting votes. Distinctly unlike Time Magazine, however, the American Dialect Society has two other important assets. An actual working knowledge of how to relate to the average American, and an understanding of the nation's sense of humour.
Witness the accuracy of the ADS in identifying past winners:
Most Likely to Succeed for 2002: “Blog: from “weblog,” a website of personal events, comments, and links.”
Word of the Year for 2000: “Chad: a small scrap of paper punched from a voting card.”
Most likely to Succeed and Most Useful for 1999: “dot-com: a company operating on the web.”
Most Likely to Succeed for 1997: “DVD: for Digital Versatile Disk; an optical disk expected to replace CDs.”
Most Likely to Succeed for 1992: “snail mail: mail that is physically delivered as opposed to e-mail”
Most Likely to Succeed for 1991: “rollerblade: to skate with rollers in a single row.”
But the Society’s understanding of the nation's sense of humour surfaces in what might be considered the “lesser” categories of new additions to the American dialect:
Most Creative word of 2005: “Whale-tail: the appearance of thong or g-string underwear above the waistband.”
Most Euphemistic of 2004: “Badly-sourced: false.” (This narrowly edged out “Wardrobe malfunction: unanticipated exposure of bodily parts.”)
Most Euphemistic of 2000: “Courtesy Call: an uninvited call from a telemarketer”
Most Euphemistic of 1998: “Senior Moment: momentary lapse of memory due to age.”
Most Original of 1998: "multislacking:" (the ADS defines it as "playing at the computer when one should be working," although I think this is currently more usefully defined as, "ignoring several high-priority tasks at once.")
So, to wrap up my message to Time Magazine, the next time a I get a call from them asking if I'd like a subscription, I'm going to say this:
"Maybe I'm having a senior moment, but your assumption that I would welcome your courtesy call while I'm in the middle of some important multislacking was badly sourced. Next time don't call, send me an ad by snail mail so at least I can deep-six it in the circular file, pronto. If you try any more phone-spamming I might come down with sudden jihad syndrome, or possibly go postal--and that would just be so low rent!"
On January 2, 1928, Time Magazine featured its first “Man of the Year," aviator Charles Lindbergh. It was a brilliant solution to the year-end dilemma presented by a traditionally slow news week. As a result, what is now called (in modern parlance) the “Person” of the Year, has been an eagerly anticipated feature of Time Magazine ever since. This was, in fact, the reason I stayed glued to CNN on the evening of December 16. It was a Saturday night….a night when anything can happen and no one ordinarily wants to stay home. So why did I? I wanted to find out whether for 2006, by some wild fluke, the person of the year just might be me.
And it was! Imagine my surprise. I should mention there was just the tiniest unexpected letdown though. Once you’ve made the cover of Time as Person of the Year (as I now have), there’s not really all that much more to anticipate in that quarter. I mean—obviously it’s not going to be me again next year, so where’s the incentive to hang on to the edge of my seat anymore?
I don’t think I’m the only one who feels this way either. In fact, my message to Time is, “move over, my friend, there’s a more interesting year-end prospect in town. Quite frankly, you have been plutoed!” (At this point, the blank expression on Time’s face clues me in to the fact that perhaps it’s having trouble understanding my dialect.) “Plutoed,” I repeat. “Surely you know what it means to be plutoed? And if not--well, then! That’s precisely the reason you have been plutoed.”
But plutoed by whom? Plutoed by what? Well, every January from now on, instead of tuning to CNN to watch the unveiling of Time’s Person of the Year; we will all be glued (via the Infobahn) to http colon, double backslash, www dot, americandialect dot org, in order to discover the current recipient of the honour of…. “The Word of the Year.”
Just in case you’re wondering, the 2006 “Word of the Year” title (by the power of the American Dialect Society), has been awarded to the new expression “to pluto, or to be plutoed.” According to the ADS, ‘to pluto,’ is “to demote or devalue someone or something, as happened to the former planet Pluto when the General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union decided Pluto no longer met its definition of a planet.” (See: Dogged! Pluto Stripped of Planetary Status, August 2006).
The ADS (it should be noted) is no fly-by-night organization. “Founded in 1889,” says their website, “the American Dialect Society is dedicated to the study of the English language in North America, and of other languages, or dialects of other languages, influencing it or influenced by it. Our members include academics and amateurs, professionals and dilettantes, teachers and writers.” (More than likely, the dilettantes bit is just to make the Society seem more personable, since the other members listed evoke images of 9th grade English teachers).
At this point it’s important to acknowledge that most of the time, the ADS concentrates on serious language issues. However, like Time Magazine, each December the Society likes to reminisce about those of the past year’s events that could be considered significant in relation to their particular line of work. Also like Time Magazine, the ADS has an effective process for collecting nominations, discussing the merits of each, and counting votes. Distinctly unlike Time Magazine, however, the American Dialect Society has two other important assets. An actual working knowledge of how to relate to the average American, and an understanding of the nation's sense of humour.
Witness the accuracy of the ADS in identifying past winners:
Most Likely to Succeed for 2002: “Blog: from “weblog,” a website of personal events, comments, and links.”
Word of the Year for 2000: “Chad: a small scrap of paper punched from a voting card.”
Most likely to Succeed and Most Useful for 1999: “dot-com: a company operating on the web.”
Most Likely to Succeed for 1997: “DVD: for Digital Versatile Disk; an optical disk expected to replace CDs.”
Most Likely to Succeed for 1992: “snail mail: mail that is physically delivered as opposed to e-mail”
Most Likely to Succeed for 1991: “rollerblade: to skate with rollers in a single row.”
But the Society’s understanding of the nation's sense of humour surfaces in what might be considered the “lesser” categories of new additions to the American dialect:
Most Creative word of 2005: “Whale-tail: the appearance of thong or g-string underwear above the waistband.”
Most Euphemistic of 2004: “Badly-sourced: false.” (This narrowly edged out “Wardrobe malfunction: unanticipated exposure of bodily parts.”)
Most Euphemistic of 2000: “Courtesy Call: an uninvited call from a telemarketer”
Most Euphemistic of 1998: “Senior Moment: momentary lapse of memory due to age.”
Most Original of 1998: "multislacking:" (the ADS defines it as "playing at the computer when one should be working," although I think this is currently more usefully defined as, "ignoring several high-priority tasks at once.")
So, to wrap up my message to Time Magazine, the next time a I get a call from them asking if I'd like a subscription, I'm going to say this:
"Maybe I'm having a senior moment, but your assumption that I would welcome your courtesy call while I'm in the middle of some important multislacking was badly sourced. Next time don't call, send me an ad by snail mail so at least I can deep-six it in the circular file, pronto. If you try any more phone-spamming I might come down with sudden jihad syndrome, or possibly go postal--and that would just be so low rent!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
